Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive 3

I have rewritten the Features section to provide a more comprehensive and detailed list of security features rather than focus just on the sandboxed Google Play Services: and as it's a substantial enough change, I figured it would be best to let the talk page know.

I don't forsee there being any problems, however, a variety of sources like listing and going over individual security changes (which makes finding good citations much easier).

There are one or two features (sensors permission and scoped storage access) that I could not find any news outlets mentioning. I have just linked to the official GrapheneOS website for those. 75.172.38.252 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Good" citations is a whole "thing." Thanks for the rewrite. I've changed it some. See above for discussion of why Android Police was previously removed as being unreliable. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Now {{Prose|section}}. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly also {{Excessive examples|section}}, but I've not tagged this. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

84.250.14.116: For a "Features" section: is prose all that desireable? Not all that much necessarily needs to be said about each change: which I think fits a bullet point list well.

I don't think it was Excessive Examples (it certainly isn't now in the current state, after review + cleanup): my impression is that example cruft applies to examples of a concept (for explaining). The Features section isn't trying to say "GrapheneOS has features, this is why", it's trying to give an overview of all the features in GrapheneOS. 71.212.97.112 (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It's to nudge contextualization and explain the significance of listed features, for Wikipedia:Notability. I would make comparisons to Debian#Features (GA-class article) and revision 1099482303 of this article. I agree the list itself should no longer as excessive as it was before after the cleanup and peer review, but prose is preferable for an encyclopedia (when expanding on what a feature is, and how it's different). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 379#Jonathan Lamont's review at MobileSyrup and the previous discussion #Jonathan Lamont's review at MobileSyrup on this talk page. These recent edits expanded referencing the biased MobileSyrup citations beyond the reception section, now in the features section (but perfection is not required and even biased sources may be reliable in context). Should those citations be referenced in the "Features" section? 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, may be marginally reliable in this context with in-text attribution (according to Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup in July 2022), matches what the GrapheneOS official website says about itself. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

For the picture added to features, is it possible to stop it from shifting the other sections? I'm assuming it's caused by the features section being too short to encompass the entire image. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the history centers on Micay. I saw a couple primary sources that may be of interest for the article.

In 2017, Micay said maintaining hardened Android kernels was part of "my job" and he spent "far more than 40 hours a week on CopperheadOS". This was in context of stopping support of Arch packages PaX and grsecurity.

In 2012 Micay posted an application for Arch Linux Trusted User, and gave other background. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding more history relating to Micay,

But when adding this history editors should avoid turning the History section into a background on Micay, It also may be worth creating a Wikipedia page on Daniel Micay. 2603:7080:A903:F154:7D1A:5A11:EB2A:AA6 (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The history sections of both this article and CopperheadOS are mostly about Micay, but I have not found enough reliable, independent, secondary sources to support an article on Micay. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Special:Diff/1126311161

I don't believe the Dirty Pipe section, or any section on individual 0days, are due. First, this wasn't a 0day in GrapheneOS itself, but in the Linux kernel. But even then, it wouldn't even belong at Linux kernel or Android (operating system), since security bugs are routine coverage. Every platform has dozens of serious ones per year. DFlhb (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your point to remove the Dirty Pipe section, if it was a GrapheneOS specific 0-day i would probably disagree, but if this page had a section for every Linux/Android 0-day it would be a way too much information thats not necessarily relevent to GrapheneOS.

Considering the lack of Security incidents with GrapheneOS specifically should the section be removed entirely or just commented out? 2603:7080:A903:F154:5172:EDF1:382E:794B (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd remove it; my criteria is that if a bug gets fixed promptly and competently, it's routine coverage and therefore undue; if a bug gets ignored, or there's "more" to a story (backdoor allegations, or a released "fix" that doesn't actually fix the bug, or general incompetence) then it would be due. The Graphene team seems pretty competent so I'd say that's unlikely.

If anyone's motivated, the biggest missing piece of this article is a section on GrapheneOS's security measures; it's the defining theme of the project, and they've done very interesting work (their extensive custom security mitigations, or their interesting approach to web browsers, their finding of Gecko being too insecure, etc.) DFlhb (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed the section, i doubt that anybody will try to dispute its removal after reading your good points about the matter.

Some of GrapheneOS' security measures are already listed in the Features section, but alot more could be added and it could be formatted/written better, also non-primary sources for things like security measures may be hard to find. but i agree that it should be expanded. 2603:7080:A903:F154:41D3:962E:4162:2579 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the Dirty Pipe mention. When mention of Dirty Pipe was first added in Special:diff/1100388586] by

84.250.14.116 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

it said, "In March 2022, GrapheneOS released Android 12L and patches for a security exploit named "Dirty Pipe" for Pixels before Google did." This was a biased, advertising-like statement, making it look like GrapheneOS did something unusually quickly. However, if you read the citation or explanatory note, you see GrapheneOS was "one of many 3rd party ROMs" that did so, which sounds more neutral.

My criteria are Wikipedia guidance on sourcing, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. If something has not received coverage from reliable secondary sources, then it is probably not encyclopedic. Someone who wants to read GrapheneOS website can do so; we don't need to copy that WP:WPNOTRS primary source material into Wikipedia. I plan to delete more poorly sourced statements. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am neutral about this, but seeing the level of consensus (and with the edits already being made) I'll mark this as resolved. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Please see Talk:GrapheneOS#Should_the_ANOM_section_be_removed.

Special:Diff/1102150367 by EndariV removed a citation. Special:Diff/1102151664 restored it. ANOM#Distribution_and_usage cites the same source with different summary. Feel free to discuss how to include and word the summary. Ignoring it is not a reasonable option. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Rewritten. Special:Diff/1102210134 Special:Diff/1102206950/1102213400 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC); 23:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I will lastly ask: Should the following be part of the section, or is it {{Editorializing}} because there is no source to support the statement unambiguously? Phones with GrapheneOS or a fork of GrapheneOS may have been involved in the ANOM FBI honeypot sting operation. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Another rewrite was required in response to Special:Diff/1102224906 by User:Yae4: Special:Diff/1102224906/1102231750. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

And let me say, I don't prefer the second rewrite I authored because it uses closer paraphrasing, which risks running into Wikipedia:Copyright violations issues. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Rewritten to resolve your concerns about your re-write. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I merged it into the main history section and rewrote it partially to add a little more context about what the ANOM sting was. 98.97.36.93 (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and reverted. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There's not much to disagree with, the ANOM sting factually was done through cell phones distributed with an FBI-controlled messaging app. Can you elaborate? 98.97.36.93 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

84.x and I had converged to a mutually acceptable format and presentation, and you changed it entirely, without explanation or consensus. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm also okay-ish with the current revision 1102582741 text, though both Yae4 and 98.'s revision risks of editorializing sources. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to make a short expansion for a due weight opinion: GrapheneOS developer Daniel Micay denied the claims., or similar. (Copyedit required.) 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Not addressed at all in this big, burdensome copyedit/undo by User:Yae4: Special:Diff/1102771432. This also introduced the same incorrect information to the article for the fourth time about devices in question (Pixel 3a and Pixel 4a said in sources, not 3 or 4), which had been previously corrected three times. By definition, wikt:controversy also means A debate or discussion of opposing opinions, since this moved it from the "History" section to "Controversies" without giving any weight for the opposing opinion. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You overlook facts such as in Special:Diff/1102771432 it said: "According to Joseph Cox of Vice Motherboard in July 2021, Pixel 3 or Pixel 4 series phones". IMO "series" is more than accurate enough for encyclopedic entries such as this. Actually "Pixel phones" should be sufficient. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to say, the context of what ANOM sting was has been lost in editorial process. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 76.135.154.252, this paragraph is not a security incident for GrapheneOS, I've read the article and don't see how it should be here. I've reverted. Omilc (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

In the source provided it's clear that the developer is speculating the reasoning behind rumors he heard. It is baffling to me to use that as any sort of evidence or source to tie these two systems together, let alone suggest it as an security incident. It seems its been re-re-re-re-reverted by Yae4, and protected as others have reached the same conclusion... 76.135.154.252 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Yae4 is reverting disputes from multiple editors and leaving nothing except "Restore more impartial, consensus-based version" dispute multiple people disagreeing. Omilc (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe the "consensus" he is referring to is between him and 84.250.14.116, I would be interested to hear 84.x's opinion on this as they have previously mentioned the ambiguity of the source. I could agree with 174.233.17.107's edit (Special:Diff/1120050486) of moving it to history as it's not a security incident. But given how weak the source is on this topic if you actually read it and the amount of people who seem to agree, I still think removal is the better option. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles report what independent sources say. If those independent sources had a published consensus that the earth is flat, then Wikipedia would also say so. The press can lie and omit details to drive an agenda and get away with it, Wikipedians don't editorialize their beliefs on the subject into articles to make it right or sound favorable. Trying to change consensus on Wikipedia is often a fool's errand; Wikipedia is not controlled by its editors, it's controlled by the media, and the media controls the narratives to the general public in their cone/sphere of influence (culture and language). You may explore Wikipedia's sister language sites in different languages and find encyclopedic articles with wildly different encyclopedic narratives on the same subject. Likewise, the media doesn't often report on multiple critical vulnerabilities found in Android; the Dirty Pipe exploit is just one example of several critical vulnerabilities disclosed, but because it was reported in independent sources, Wikipedia does too (without weight on other critical vulnerabilities the press didn't pick up on). Hopefully this drives a point forward on what Wikipedia includes (and what it doesn't). Because these opinions were published in an independent source, they may merit some encyclopedic significance, and should be included in the article. Thus, in reply to 76.135.154.252: I disagree with the removal of this text from the article.

On that note about the body text of revision 1120387542 § ANOM sting operation seems like an accurate representation or summarization of the Vice source, without omitting details or reading between lines to come to a different conclusion. I feel like the Vice source is first and foremost about Anom phones with ArcaneOS; secondarily it's about encrypted phones like Encrochat, Phantom Secure, rumors of operating on GrapheneOS and opinions of Micay on what Anom phones are operating on or advertised to have, and this feels like to me to be unambiguous. I feel like the only part where the Vice source could be ambiguous is that Micay's quoted opinions do not explicitly refer the names of these (former three) companies or advertisers specifically. However, I have no no doubt to the authenticity of this Vice source, and the source should stay.

The next question is how the section should be titled. The Vice source cited does not explicitly call the subject matter as an "incident" or "controversy", but I imagine – by Wiktionary definitions – the Vice source to cover a news story about the ANOM incident in general, and a debate or discussion of opinion about their relation to GrapheneOS with Micay, where Micay has been given a voice for an opposing opinion. I support retitling the section as one of the following:

• ANOM incident or ANOM sting operation;
• Controversies; or
• Relations to ANOM, Encrochat and Phantom Secure.

In my opinion these are the most neutral representations for the article. I feel like calling it a "security incident" is a bit far of imagination. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I can also propose the following paragraph as a replacement, which the editors concerned may find more acceptable or consensus-like:

According to Joseph Cox writing for Vice Motherboard in July 2021, an analysis of an Anom phone (advertised in the ANOM FBI honeypot, sting operation) and an investigation of forum posts online by Motherboard found Anom phones display a boot logo for an operating system named ArcaneOS. Daniel Micay reportedly received photos of a Pixel 3a phone with Anom software, which he shared with Motherboard. Micay reportedly heard claims Anom used GrapheneOS and speculated "it sounds like" Anom may have been advertised to use GrapheneOS, but claimed "it has no basis." Motherboard also reported encrypted phone firms such as EncroChat and Phantom Secure used by organized criminals in the past offered devices similar to an Anom device; in another quote Micay also said, "[it] sounds like people have heard of GrapheneOS so these companies either use it" [GrapheneOS or a fork] "in some way or just claim they did when they didn't."^[1]

This removes editorializing and non-evidential statements, while trying to remain impartial to statements represented in the source. This proposal still ties the Anom phones to the FBI operation, and Anom's relation to GrapheneOS. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Alleged relations to ANOM, Encrochat and Phantom Secure or something along those lines is also fine. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"Independent, reliable" sources are allowed to editorialize, and that can be summarized in the article, as it has been. Re: Security incident, count how many times "secur" is found in the source. Then the source includes, Micay said. "Quite amusing security theater." I object to any more changes to the section unless truly uninvolved editors say otherwise. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, you're saying that because "secur" exists in the source that's why this paragraph specifically should be labeled as a security incident for GraphineOS? If that's what we are going by then the "incident" involving Copperhead Limited should be moved from History to Security incidents as the sources use the German word "sicher" a lot. The word secure is inherently tied to GraphineOS as it's security-focused, you would be hard pressed to find an article about it that doesn't include that word. I'm confused how this constitutes a security incident such as the dirty pipe exploit when its obviously closer to an allegation or controversy. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I've read the Vice article (again), and the source's statement about security theater seem seem to be quotes from Micay aimed at Anom / ArcaneOS' calculator application. I see Vice discusses two things: Security incidents of Anom; and a controversy of (unsubstantial) alleged relations of Anom (and ArcaneOS) to GrapheneOS. These two subjects are distinct. I agree with the opinions of User:Omilc, 76.135.154.252, 174.233.17.107 and 2603:7080:a903:f154::/64 that this is not a GrapheneOS security incident (for this article). 98.97.36.93 kept it in the history section. Also important: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, so I appreciate that explanation. If that is how Wikipedia operates, removing that section shouldn't be the right course of action, yet I think it still needs to be improved.

My original gripe with the section was its placement under Security incidents. By retitling, are you suggesting moving it under one of the names proposed? If so, then I very much agree. It could probably be shortened to "Alleged relations to ANOM" as Micay is directly referring to Anom here "Micay said others claimed that Anom used GrapheneOS itself". But as he uses the phrase "these companies" later, is that enough to assume the other two are a part of the claims he heard?

As for rewriting it, your version is easier to read with its greater use of parentheses and brackets. The slight change to some of the sentences makes it more objectively convey what is actually in the source. I didn't take issue with how the original paragraph was written per-se, but looking at it now, this version is an improvement and should be used. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

A note, FYI, the Vice source states The phone offers "PIN scrambling," (like that is special). CopperHeadOS and GrapheneOS since early 2020 include this, (as does LineageOS at some point). Re: "Security" incident, there is no question "Security incident" is a fitting section title, but I don't care if it is changed to just "Incident", and will do so. The proposed modified paragraph changes the introductory summary sentence to just another statement, and lengthens a couple other statements. The first is poor writing - a paragraph should have an intro summary sentence; the second is just fluffy. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no question that "Security incident" is a fitting title... if you ignore other users opinions. Which, unfortunately, is an ongoing theme here. Changing the main title to "Incidents" doesn't cover all my concerns; as I've said, it's more appropriately labeled as an allegation or controversy as what's provided by the source. The source is effectively saying "I heard people say this, but it has no basis", an allegation or controversy is clearly more fitting. You've jumped the gun and changed it, but we should hear from 84.250.14.116 or Omilc before reaching a decision.

I should also note an outside opinion on the administrator noticeboard suggested it be removed entirely, but that's a separate question.

Really, you should NOT note it here while ongoing, because it could be considered improper Wikipedia:Canvassing. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I am directly linking this users edit. If you're suggesting I'm canvassing for the incident itself, that is not my intention. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I accidentally submitted an edit before finishing the edit summary so I'll explain it to you directly. As the new source you cited is a summary of vice including "according to engadget" is undue as for both sources its according to the vice article. However, that source should be included so I put their citations together. If you disagree with this middle ground please discuss it here so we're not edit warring. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

As said in the edit summary, see Wikipedia:Attribution. We should attribute and cite statements accurately. Restoring, again. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Jon Fingas's article is reporting the existence of the Vice article alongside a summary, in text citation for Jon Fingas when Vice's article is the source material is WP:Undue. If numerous articles reported on vice's story, are you to preamble the text with every single outlet and author who mentioned Vice? No, you cite the source of the material being used. Jon Fingas's article is only being used here to show that another publication was interested, and for that a ref note is perfectly acceptable Attribution. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a objection to my clarification or should I redo my edit? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by waiting, but this seems like pretty evident WP:Stonewalling. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding GrapheneOS involvement, Fingas says Some user said Anom was based on the existing GrapheneOS, but Anom may have lied to buyers about the software to instill a false sense of trust. and does not include the more extensive discussion regarding GrapheneOS involvement as given in Vice Motherboard. Thus Fingas is cited for what it supports - only the paragraph introduction sentence. If Fingas is cited at the end of the paragraph, it implies support for all of the statements, which Fingas does not give. In summary, I repeat: I object to any more changes to the section unless truly uninvolved editors say otherwise. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As for the rewrite I don't really care either way, IMO the current paragraph isn't flawed enough to argue over.

CyanogenMod introduced pin scrambling in 2014, and I'm assuming LineageOS would inherit that as it's a fork of CyanogenMod. However, I don't know why this is relevant. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Should the ANOM section be removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Enough input from outside editors has led me to consider this matter resolved, the ANOM section has been removed from the GrapheneOS Wikipedia page.

The section of this page about ANOM has caused alot of controversy, and has had a long discussion which can be hard to follow, So this section is a attempt to resolve this matter.

If you have a opinion on this matter reply to this section of the talk page with it, When replying please state at the beginning or end of your reply if you Support the removal of the ANOM section, Do not support of removal of the ANOM section, or are Netural or otherwise do not wish to vote on this matter, If you have already "voted" on this matter in another reply please state that instead of "re-voting".

I Support the removal of the ANOM section: because i feel it is not relevent enough to GrapheneOS to be on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:A903:F154:6004:A9E1:32DE:8BFD (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree with deletion: I object to any more changes to the section unless consensus of other uninvolved editors say otherwise. It is inappropriate to discuss deletion when there are now two secondary sources cited. I suggest using WP:RFC to get uninvolved editors' opinions. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Already voted on this discussion): I have added a Request for comment (WP:RFC), but i feel that should not stop other editors from participating in this discussion. -- 2603:7080:A903:F154:F84D:833:5DBE:C705 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I Support removal: I fail to see how this is an incident of GrapheneOS. Daniel Micay states that he heard rumors that ANOM used GrapheneOS but that it doesn't seem to be true. There is nothing substantial here; It's a side note even in Vice's own article.

The relevance of Engadget's article is also of ongoing debate, specifically if its current in-text citation is WP:DUE. It's a extremely brief summary of Vice's article, so much so that the primary source is falsely attributed to "some user [of anom]" instead of GrapheneOS's developer Daniel Micay; Perhaps because it's been summarized down to a single sentence. It's sole purpose in this article should be to show that another outlet was interested in Vice's story. As such, I disagree with keeping this section solely on the basis of containing two sources. 76.135.154.252 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Remove - The cited connection to ANOM is speculative and this is already a tangential topic for this article. This material can be moved to ANOM if editors there find it relevant. ~Kvng (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• (The user below this comment Already voted on this discussion but is not following the format of the section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:A903:F154:B992:783B:E850:2A41 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The Vice Motherboard source quotes Micay, who is central to this topic, several times. Much of the speculation is his. It is a directly connected topic for this article, and the real or potential connection causes serious concern for GrapheneOS users, which is why GrapheneOS supporters and promoters are pushing so persistently to remove it. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Already voted on this discussion): Yae4 maybe you should read the Vice article again, Micay commented on ArcaneOS, and also commented on the claims that GrapheneOS was used in some way by ArcaneOS, but Micay himself said "it has no basis",

If you can find proof that in some way at ArcaneOS used GrapheneOS i could see the relevence to this Wikipedia page, but even Micay didnt have proof to support these claims.

I dont see how this is a "serious concern for GrapheneOS users", even if it was this page is not a news website and is not a GrapheneOS communication channel.

(At least to me) This is not some kind of conspiracy against GrapheneOS users/supporters/promoters and is not some kind of coverup about the alledged use of GrapheneOS in ArcaneOS. -- 2603:7080:A903:F154:2427:1B44:F9DC:60A8 (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Already voted on this discussion): Micay's interview is only partially mentioned in ANOM at the moment. I agree that moving/expanding it there is another possibility, but the same issues on its speculativeness/relevency may still arise.

76.135.154.252 (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Remove This has poor relevance to this article, and IMO is non-encyclopedic content; I don't think it belongs here, and don't think it belongs at ANOM either unless better sources exist than just rumors. And contrary to what's said above, an RFC isn't required at all to remove sourced statements. There are many other considerations than WP:V, includng WP:POV and WP:DUE, which editors can an should take into account. DFlhb (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input, An RFC was requested because otherwise User:Yae4 would likely have reverted removal of the ANOM section, with the claim that it wasnt a "consenus based" decision. At this point i think there is enough input to consider this matter closed. 2603:7080:A903:F154:B992:783B:E850:2A41 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I counted outside input from one editor with under 3 months Wiki-experience, and one more experienced editor. This is helpful, but not overwhelming. I feel the article is out of balance with some citations used several times, and now, two citations on one incident completely ignored. This is not closed, but it may need to be taken to other venues for oversight. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  under 3 months Wiki-experience hey, don't sell me short! It's exactly 3 months to the day! (And coincidentally, my account itself is 6 years old, also to the day!) DFlhb (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• User:Yae4 If you want to get a Admin involved please be my guest, but Every Single Person except you agrees with removing the ANOM section, also i counted 3 outside editors, User:Kvng, User:DFlhb and User:Rhododendrites.

(Rhododendrites commented in the RFC section, in case you missed that comment). Also your history of discriminating against users because they are a IP-only editor or their account history/age isnt old enough is making me consider reporting you.

(Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers, Wikipedia:IP_editors_are_human_too) and your behavior is borderline (if not already) Wikipedia:Passive_aggression. 2603:7080:A903:F154:DD70:6479:C1AB:85F0 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Pixel 3 or Pixel 4 series"

Resolved

 – An older version was restored (Special:Permalink/1105130982), which no longer misleads about the devices in question. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I disapprove the article's statement "Pixel 3 or Pixel 4 series", while the reference speaks of Pixel 3a and Pixel 4a devices. Although self-referencing Wikipedia is unreliable, they are all the same series (Google Pixel; compare to the previous lineup, Google Nexus). For models, Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL were marketed and released at the same time, but Pixel 4a was marketed / first released distinctively a year later. I agree with "Pixel phones" or "Pixel 3a or Pixel 4a phones". To be even more precise, there is no context in source which devices may have been advertised with GrapheneOS with Anom messaging, but it could be fair to assume and say "devices" or "phones" without a specifier. Special:Permalink/1102242945, with its caveats, made no assumptions about the device type or context for statements about GrapheneOS. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC); edited 12:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Disapprove all you wish. Looks like we agree on "Pixel phones". I disapprove of removing the section entirely, which was recently done. Will be restoring an older version shortly. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on this Vice Motherboard source, I can only agree "Pixel phones" "Pixel 3a or Pixel 4a phones" were loaded with Anom software. This is aside from reading Micay's opinion Anom may have advertised to use GrapheneOS. I cannot determine from such (possibly non-factual) opinion, without more context, which specific Anom devices (if any) were involved and I should not synthesize those to have been Pixel devices. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC); edited 12:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, after many edits, intent-based writing is still difficult. I should disagree with "Pixel phones" and agree "Pixel 3a or Pixel 4a phones" were loaded with Anom software based on this source. My intent is to message the difference between the Google Pixel series and Pixel (1st generation). Anyway, in current revision Special:Permalink/1105130982, this is a non-issue. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)